Should left-leaning politicians and powerful figures begin a new party to pressure Starmer’s Labour in the way UKIP pressured and changed the Tories?
How many Tribunes, real socialist parties, tankies, eurocommunists and all have tried that already?
Should left-leaning politicians and powerful figures begin a new party to pressure Starmer’s Labour in the way UKIP pressured and changed the Tories?
How many Tribunes, real socialist parties, tankies, eurocommunists and all have tried that already?
They should start a party that unapologetically raises taxes, bans petrol engines, bans fracking and chases oil companies out of the UK North Sea, vastly expands the power of the state, ensures massive Third World immigration continues uninterrupted, and jails parents for trying to prevent the NHS and schools from changing their kids’ gender.
Let’s call it the Conservative Party.
It would all depend on the funding from their moneybags i.e. the unions.
It’s a novel idea. Given the countless examples down the years of splits, scisms, divisions and factions among the faithful, usually in the interests of ideological purity, perhaps it would be possible to get the many splinter-groups to coalesce around a single deeply objectionable individual incapable of tolerating the mildest note of dissent.
Every Socialist loves the idea of Putin’s Russia.
Provided THEY are Vlad.
Otherwise, not so much…
He means a party with himself – professor Lord potato – pulling the strings in the background like some fat mandleson but without the Brazilian rent boy (he can’t afford one but I’m sure you can donate via his blog)
Yeah yeah I remember his no desire for power speech, but that was last week
Thank you Steve. That puts it perfectly.
‘Riskier Armrest’ is doing just fine reducing Liebour’s electoral chances. Sorry Spud, no behind the scenes job for you, tough luck!
Most election ballot papers end up with half a dozen assorted left wing parties on them.
I’ve always assumed this was because a lot of people on the left are deeply unpleasant sociopathic narcissists who either cannot tolerate not being in charge, or the members of the various other left wing parties have kicked out for their behaviour.
This does nothing to change my view.
Daniel: I had assumed that the plethora of no-hopers we see on the ballot was because it’s much cheaper in real terms to do it now. Wasn’t the deposit a thousand quid back in the 60s/70s? That was real money in them days.
Serious left-leaning politicians are content to sit on their hands and let the conservatives continue on their present self-destructive pattern.
Meanwhile the real nutters will continue to be interviewed by c4 and the bbc under the perpetual illusion that voters actually give a Donald Duck about their views.
Tractor Gent: It was £150 from 1918 right up till 1985, when it was increased to its current £500. Adjusted for inflation, £150 in 1985 works out at roughly £580 today. (And adjusting for 1918, it’s closer to £10,000.) So you’re correct to the extent that it’s never been cheaper in real terms, but the actual rate hasn’t been reduced.
Daniel: It’s a fundamental asymmetry between Thomas Sowell’s unconstrained and constrained visions that the threshold for leaving a conservative party to found a new and better conservative party is, by definition, higher than for leaving a progressive party to found a new and better progressive party. Which is not to say that we aren’t in that territory today.
Tell your “we need more parties” friend that diluting the field lowers the threshold for Nazis to gain a majority, and watch their head explode.